The only thing worse than government corruption is the complacency of so many! If allowed to continue then whose fault is it?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The government has already discredited anyone who has enough sense to see through the spin and prepare anyway. Now they have taken it to the next level by blaming those who are preparing for panic mongering - a bigger problem than y2k they say. Next they will target those who don't follow suit, by claiming they are a 'threat' and MUST be stopped at all costs, i.e., prosecute and jail those radicals if necessary! Those "cowering radicals hunkered down in churches waiting for the world to end" must be stopped - for their own good as well as the good of the country - they are dangerous! Mr KliNton sir, I have come to the conclusion that you may very well be the devil's right-hand man. At the very least sir, you are an ASS!

Those corrupt government officials are afraid of anyone who opposes them. They are afraid of anyone with the courage to stand up for what they believe in - the Constitution of the United States as it was written. If too many Americans started paying attention to what they are doing the 'corrupt' would be running scared. It's all about money and POWER!

The only thing worse than government corruption is the complacency of so many! If allowed to continue then whose fault is it?

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999

Answers

Do you smell a REVOLUTION?

-- govfatigue (govfatigue@govfatigue.com), July 28, 1999.

Some of you are mad!! It sounds as if you actually WANT runs on the banks to occur!!

Y2K will be serious enough and there will be problems......which BTW, we will fix...whether it takes a few weeks or a few months to recover is up for discussion.....

However, it is a fact that extremist doomsayers could help bring about a run on the banks. This would cause many many problems and it is no surprise that the banks and governments would do anything possible to help alleviate that risk. I mean really, what choice do they have for Gods sake!! Freedom of speech is important, very important. But it certainly is not an absolute right if it affects the security and well-being of a country.

I too have noticed that in the last few weeks there has been a proliferation of gun toting wackos that can't seem to wait to be hovering over their stashes with their shotguns.

Their is no ulterior motive in the government wanting to avoid panic.......avoiding panic is a GOOD thing......many of you have already said it yourselves, there are not enough supplies for them to openly advocate that everyone stock up for months of potential disruptions........

How long until the extremists GET IT.....the supposed 'Good old days' were not that good.......there was far more sickness, poverty and ignorance back then......predujice abounded even worse than today.......

FACE IT......we're not going back to any 'Good old days'.......we're moving on fortunately.........

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 28, 1999.


"Is life so sweet and peace so dear, that they must be bought with the chains of slavery. Not I almighty God, as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry.

It is time to vote, with your courage. Charon

-- Charon (Thatplace@downbelow.com), July 28, 1999.


I don't buy this whole BAD GOVERNMENT thing.

In a democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! We voted foolishly to elect BJ Clinton instead of George Bush (a guy that was shot down twice in the Pacific while trying to defend his country). We even re-elected him after several scandals.

The president appointed Janet Reno. The cabinet, and several other leaders of the FBI, NATO, IMF, etc..

WE DID THIS.

Next time we pull the ballot levers.. Let's think a little.

Drop the Government conspiracy BS, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE.

-- Bryce (bryce@seanet.com), July 28, 1999.


"In a democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!"

This is where the "system" breaks down. Most people say and think what slick advertisers and "news" broadcasters tell them to - including, implicitly, how to vote.

In a "Democracy" (which the USA was not founded as), "majority rules", no matter what the majority decides. In a republic, such as the USA (was), there are basic laws which bound the "majority" (mob?).

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 28, 1999.



No, we have a government voted on by 38% of the population. When you are voting on the lesser of two evils, it is better to not vote at all. Besides, with the "electorial college" bullshit, IMHO, the whole thing is rigged anyway. It is a little late at this time to do anything, unless you can organize a MAJOR voting block, short of revolution.

growlin' at the pollster at the front door...

The Dog

(who voted Libertarian and for Perot....)

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 28, 1999.


The only thing worse than government corruption is the complacency of so many!

So many forget who is really in charge, and it is not the govt. What is going to happen has been already determined by HIM. I am not a bible expert, however I remember that when the masses praised idols, they felt the wrath. Today the govt is the idol of many. The govt will provide for us, take care of us, the one many look to for guidance and protection. Moral decay surrounds us, starting at the top with our leadership.

The ultimate reponsibility for taking care of your family rests with you. If you wait for the govt to take care of you, good luck. The govt has its own interests and taking care of the sheeple is down on the list.

It could be time for the toilet we have created to be flushed. If not Y2K, it could any number of other things, all of which it would be prudent to prepare for. If and when TSHTF, if your family goes hungry who will you turn to? I don't want to find myself in line behind an army truck looking for todays rations. If you wish to take that risk, I hope you never have to look at your children and say "sorry, I was wrong".

What is wrong with having extra supplies on hand if not for Y2K, for any other natural or man-made disaster that could happen? If nothing happens, donate the food to the homeless, they will be grateful and you can be proud of yourself for helping those less fortunate.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, get right with God. (not necessarily in that order).

-- hopingforthebest (preparing@fortheworst.com), July 28, 1999.


" Freedom of speech is important, very important. But it certainly is not an absolute right if it affects the security and well-being of a country."

These are the words that are spoken by every tyrant and dictator that ever was. The Bill of Rights spell out what rights Americans have that are "inalienable", that is, granted by the fact that you are born human. Those of the Founders who were religious considered them as being granted to human beings by God, those who were agnostic cited Natural Law. Nevertheless, they all agreed that these rights were INALIENABLE, which means that NO GOVERNMENT MAY INFRINGE OPON OR ABRIDGE THESE RIGHTS-....PERIOD!!!

Once again, for those people who have forgotten, here is a partial rundown of your birthright as a human being:

1. FREE SPEECH. 2. FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. 3. THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED, AGAINST THE STATE IF NEED BE. 4. THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY. 5. THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 6. THE RIGHT TO BE SAFE FROM ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SIEZURES. 7. THE RIGHT TO VOTE. 8. THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.

There are other areas of the Constitution, such as the Tenth Amendment, that are ignored and trodden under by our own government in their quest for power. For instance, we have been involved in seven wars since 1945, and in not ONE instance has Congress declared war, despite the clear and unambiguous constitutional requirement that they do so. In effect, our Presidents have been violating the same Costitution they swore to uphold, ordering our military into foreign wars of economic conquest, the same as any other military dictator. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but when I was in school, we were taught that these rights were worth fighting and dying for. I still believe this, and I have some ancestors in Arlington and other graves who believed it too. If it comes down to it, I will join them there, trusting in God to help me do what is right. There are millions of Americans who will be there with me. Those who trash the Constitution had better take note. Our birthright of freedom has been in jeopardy a long time, y2k or no, because of supposedly educated 'elites' who no longer believe in these inalienable rights. If y2k forces the issue, so be it, many preparations are being made quietly, we will be ready for it if it comes.

Forrest Covington

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), July 28, 1999.


Forrest...don't be simplistic please. All rights have certain reasonable limitations..........

You do have freedom of religious worship, however you are not free to sacrifice children.....

YOu have the freedom to be armed, however you do not have the freedom to walk through the local shopping mall with a loaded shotgun.....

You have the right to free speech, however you do not have the right to incite a riot or shout fire in a crowded cinema if there isn't one....

You have the right to vote but not if you are only 11 years old........

You have the right to travel however you are not free to walk aimlessly through the middle of a nuclear power plant nor are you free to walk into a quarantined area.....

Certainly the limitations need to be as few as possible......but limitations are necessary for the protection of society as a whole.

Rights occasionally change too.....thank God. You no longer have the right to own a slave.....you no longer have the right to beat your wife.......you do not have the right to withhold food from your children......

Here's food for thought: Those who insist on simplistic answers to complex questions tend to become extremists.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 28, 1999.


Well said, Craig. Thank you.

-- Hannah (Hannah@Colonial America.com), July 28, 1999.


Forrest...don't be simplistic please. All rights have certain reasonable limitations..........

I think that human rights are an area where being "simplistic" is a worthy goal. Once basic rights are allowed to be diluted with relativistic mumbo-jumbo, they cease to become rights and can be arbitrarily enforced by whoever has the most gold and guns.

You do have freedom of religious worship, however you are not free to sacrifice children.....

The right to worship freely is, of course, subservient to the right to live freely. When free "worship" interferes with the right of others to their own lives, of course it's illegal. YOu have the freedom to be armed, however you do not have the freedom to walk through the local shopping mall with a loaded shotgun.....

A shopping mall is a public space, but it is still private property, land that is owned by an investor or corporation. The right to own private property--and for the propreitor to enforce his/her own rules on that property--should not be infringed. If those rules include the banning of guns, so be it. If those rules PERMIT the patrons to carry weapons, so be it. You have the right to free speech, however you do not have the right to incite a riot or shout fire in a crowded cinema if there isn't one....

Yes, the classic old example of how free speech can't really be free. Well, why not? You want to shout fire? Fine. The usher drags you out. Why? Again, a movie theater is a privately-owned, public space. When you do such a thing, you commit damage to someone's business and you violate your contract with that institution. The owner has the right to sue you for lost revenue. This is not really a free speech issue, it is again an issue of how business owners wish to enforce (THEIR OWN) rules. It does not pertain to the Federal government imprisoning or harassing those who exuberantly disagree with its policies.

You have the right to vote but not if you are only 11 years old........

You are not a full citizen when you are 11 years old, and therefore are not the beneficiary of all its rights and privileges. You have the right to travel however you are not free to walk aimlessly through the middle of a nuclear power plant nor are you free to walk into a quarantined area.....

Again, the nuke plant is likely to be private property. Same old arguments apply. A quaranteened area? Hmmm. Can you be more specific? What gives the Authority the right to quarantine under what circumstances? Certainly the limitations need to be as few as possible......but limitations are necessary for the protection of society as a whole.

"Protection?" Protection of WHAT?? The "SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?" No. That's incorrect, in my opinion. "Society as a whole" is made up of INDIVIDUALS with basic individual rights, without which society would not exist. It's great to protect the common good and enact laws improve people's general well being, but ultimately such utilitarian ideals must not dilute the basic rights. FOR EXAMPLE--What if you checked into a hospital for a appendicitis? Suppose your surgeon sees all the great, healthy organs you have while under general anesthesia, and decides that "For the Common Good" you are to donate one leg, your eyes, one lung, and half your liver to save the lives of nearby patients. He does not ask for permission to do this. Result: the hospital as a whole is a much happier place!! More people get to live! But you, my friend, are S*** out of luck because this Utilitarian Hospital does not acknowledge Individual Rights.

Laws should be in place for one reason, and one reason only. TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM...To ensure that everybody is as free as they can possibly be, because that is the greatest Good that a government can ever hope to accomplish. What is our "freedom?" Consult your friendly neighborhood Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Rights occasionally change too.....thank God. You no longer have the right to own a slave.....you no longer have the right to beat your wife.......you do not have the right to withhold food from your children......

These practices occured not because "rights change," but because (thank God) we have become more civilized and have decided that so-called "universal" rights are pretty useless unless UNIVERSALLY APPLIED to all human beings.

Here's food for thought: Those who insist on simplistic answers to complex questions tend to become extremists.

That last morsel of thought leaves me quite hungry, I'm sorry to say. Here's another morsel of thought: A Thing or Idea is only as meaningful as it is Generalizable; for something to be generalizable, it must necessarily be simple at its core. (Otherwise a Concept has little explanatory value and can be linked with only a limited subset of other little, meaningless concepts.)

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), July 28, 1999.


Forrest...don't be simplistic please. All rights have certain reasonable limitations..........

I think that human rights are an area where being "simplistic" is a worthy goal. Once basic rights are allowed to be diluted with relativistic mumbo-jumbo, they cease to become rights and can be arbitrarily enforced by whoever has the most gold and guns.

You do have freedom of religious worship, however you are not free to sacrifice children.....

The right to worship freely is, of course, subservient to the right to live freely. When free "worship" interferes with the right of others to their own lives, of course it's illegal.

YOu have the freedom to be armed, however you do not have the freedom to walk through the local shopping mall with a loaded shotgun.....

A shopping mall is a public space, but it is still private property, land that is owned by an investor or corporation. The right to own private property--and for the propreitor to enforce his/her own rules on that property--should not be infringed. If those rules include the banning of guns, so be it. If those rules PERMIT the patrons to carry weapons, so be it.

You have the right to free speech, however you do not have the right to incite a riot or shout fire in a crowded cinema if there isn't one....

Yes, the classic old example of how free speech can't really be free. Well, why not? You want to shout fire? Fine. The usher drags you out. Why? Again, a movie theater is a privately-owned, public space. When you do such a thing, you commit damage to someone's business and you violate your contract with that institution. The owner has the right to sue you for lost revenue. This is not really a free speech issue, it is again an issue of how business owners wish to enforce (THEIR OWN) rules. It does not pertain to the Federal government imprisoning or harassing those who exuberantly disagree with its policies.

You have the right to vote but not if you are only 11 years old........

You are not a full citizen when you are 11 years old, and therefore are not the beneficiary of all its rights and privileges.

You have the right to travel however you are not free to walk aimlessly through the middle of a nuclear power plant nor are you free to walk into a quarantined area.....

Again, the nuke plant is likely to be private property. Same old arguments apply. A quaranteened area? Hmmm. Can you be more specific? What gives the Authority the right to quarantine under what circumstances?

Certainly the limitations need to be as few as possible......but limitations are necessary for the protection of society as a whole.

"Protection?" Protection of WHAT?? The "SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?" No. That's incorrect, in my opinion. "Society as a whole" is made up of INDIVIDUALS with basic individual rights, without which society would not exist. It's great to protect the common good and enact laws improve people's general well being, but ultimately such utilitarian ideals must not dilute the basic rights. FOR EXAMPLE--What if you checked into a hospital for a appendicitis? Suppose your surgeon sees all the great, healthy organs you have while under general anesthesia, and decides that "For the Common Good" you are to donate one leg, your eyes, one lung, and half your liver to save the lives of nearby patients. He does not ask for permission to do this. Result: the hospital as a whole is a much happier place!! More people get to live! But you, my friend, are S*** out of luck because this Utilitarian Hospital does not acknowledge Individual Rights.

Laws should be in place for one reason, and one reason only. TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM...To ensure that everybody is as free as they can possibly be, because that is the greatest Good that a government can ever hope to accomplish. What is our "freedom?" Consult your friendly neighborhood Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Rights occasionally change too.....thank God. You no longer have the right to own a slave.....you no longer have the right to beat your wife.......you do not have the right to withhold food from your children......

These practices occured not because "rights change," but because (thank God) we have become more civilized and have decided that so-called "universal" rights are pretty useless unless UNIVERSALLY APPLIED to all human beings.

Here's food for thought: Those who insist on simplistic answers to complex questions tend to become extremists.

That last morsel of thought leaves me quite hungry, I'm sorry to say. Here's another morsel of thought: A Thing or Idea is only as meaningful as it is Generalizable; for something to be generalizable, it must necessarily be simple at its core. (Otherwise a Concept has little explanatory value and can be linked with only a limited subset of other little, meaningless concepts.)



-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), July 28, 1999.


Way to go, Craig!

You've just classified every signer of the Constitution as a simplistic extremist.

Your argument has been advanced every time socialism rears its ugly head.

The realistic outcome is:

"Must limit the rights......well, people aren't qualified to limit their own rights......well, of course the government must do it for them........rights? What rights"

-- de (delewis@Xinetone.net), July 28, 1999.


I was not being as simplistic as you assumed. The original quote I took on was about freedom of speech, and it was in reference to the author's implication that 'some' speech about y2k was 'dangerous' to the security of the State. All of your examples about slavery and shouting fire in a crowded theater are straw man examples, relating not to the rights of individuals, but to the abuse of those rights in ways that infringe on the rights of others. You can tell, from my writing style, that I am at least intelligent enough to understand these points before you made them. Therefore I will also ASSUME that your response to my post was not a serious one, merely an attempt to make me look extremist or to ridicule my ideas. I know you are smart enough to know better, so I will ASSUME further that your motive was indeed to denigrate me and not to add anything positive to the discussion. I will also ASSUME that most other people reading this forum are smart enough to see this for themselves, and I will dispense with it without further ado. Remember that when you ASSUME you make an ASS of U and ME.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), July 28, 1999.

So you clearly state that you are ASSUMING three things and then go on to make a statement about how stupid it is to ASSUME anything..........Duh!!

Also, why is it that when anyone mentions anything about 'community rights' that the word 'socialism' is thrown into the equation.......even the lonely ant has the good common sense to know that he is not an island but part of the greater community.

I don't like to be stopped at a roadside check by the police any more than anyone else......it violates my rights.....

However, I like it less when a drunk driver hits a child and kills them.........

So if a small violation of my rights serves the greater good, perhaps I shouldn't whine about a small violation of my rights........

Of course, a selfish person isn't even prepared to give a dollar even if it saves a fellow man a thousand dollars............

The extreme left: lazy

The extreme right: selfish

Thank God there are at least some balanced people here who understand that the middle ground is what civilized society is built on.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 28, 1999.



We may have elected the president, senator, representative, governor, mayor, judges, but we didn't elect the people they appointed. They are the government now, not us.

-- govfatigue (govfatigue@govfatigue.com), July 28, 1999.

Craig,

Extreme left = government control of business = Communism = Totalitarianism (for the "common good"), i.e., USSR

Extreme right = business control of government = Fascism = Totalitarianism (for the "common good"), i.e., NAZI Germany

The USA was founded upon inalienable freedom and the responsible exercise of that freedom, not upon the Collectivist State or the Statist Collective.

Every freedom we lose, diminish, or leave to the vagaries of relativism leads us, inexorably, to a de facto government that you, I, and our children will suffer under every day of our lives.

Freedom is not free. Don't give it away.

I won't give your freedom away and I would thank you not to give away mine.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), July 28, 1999.


Bryce: You may have the intelligence for coding, but as far as politics, you are low two-digit IQ.

"We are the government." ROTFLMAO. Government (public) school and state controlled (licensed) private school propaganda.

The government is not US; it's THEM. One of the major problems is that most people, like you, do not recognize that simple fact.

Thsi subject has been covered ad nauseum on this forum in other threads. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NOT FIXABLE. The tipping point/trigger point (think bi-stable device) has long since been exceeded.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 28, 1999.


better than the shoe size IQ you labor under, A.

vote republican, America has been to long without a president.

-- Democrate/Nazi Thumper (thump@thump.whap), July 28, 1999.


Dear Craig: "Also, why is it that when anyone mentions anything about 'community rights' that the word 'socialism' is thrown into the equation.......even the lonely ant has the good common sense to know that he is not an island but part of the greater community."

Ants are insects. There is no such thing as "community rights". I have never seen such a concept in any discussions of Western concepts of democratic, republican government. Such a phrase only arises in yes, socialist countries, such as China where they indeed place the "rights" of the community above the individual. It is the "right " of the nation not to be overpopulated, for instance, which in their view overrides the right of women to have children, therefore, forced abortions. The concept of "community rights" is roughly the same as the "divine right of kings" in that the Monarch was the Nation, therefore the rights and perogatives of the Monarch overrule those of his subjects. My ancestors's commentary on such an idea involved much powder and shot. Just because someone is poor, DOES NOT give them any RIGHT to use the government to confiscate my property. I may choose to be charitable, and indeed I am. But once you invoke the claim of "community" rights, there is no stopping place. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to set limits on the ability of the majority to impose its will on the individual, to set stark limits on the 'rights' of the community, if you want to see it that way. The reason you can't escape the S word in this discussion is simple. It's called "commune-ism".(socialism is the political philosophy of Communist states.) One look at the Eastern bloc today will tell you how well such a concept worked in practice. There is also no such concept in our legal system. If I am accused of a crime, I am prosecuted by the State, however the charge will be that I did such-and such to an individual or individuals. One exception would be a charge of treason, in which case the "victim" is considered to be the State, but that would not be considered a violation of the "rights" of the State. Your notion of 'community rights' may come from the fact that over several generations we have attempted to graft a socialist style welfare state onto the rootstock of the sovereignity of the individual that is the fundamental principle of the American constitutional republic. This has been an alien and debilitating experiment that has increased dependency and eroded the family and work ethic in this country, which is why it is being gradually rolled back. This rollback of the Welfare State is an indication of the underlying health of the American social fabric. Y2k looks likely to accelerate this process. Remember that the first social welfare programs in the West originated in Germany under Otto von Bismarck, who realised that workers who were protected from life's viscittudes by the State would be the most supportive of his authoritarian agenda. He was right. You may of course entertain such concepts as you wish, however if people remind you that you are talking about socialism, why protest? There seem to be plenty of stealth socialists these days, and few overt ones. Why not just become a Socialist? Then you can argue against the American system as a whole, with enthusiasm and consistency, as well. I am surprised that these issues even come up sometimes. We had a class in high school called Civics, where we learned the concepts behind the American system of government. Indeed, it seems evident that the more we depart from those original concepts of how our society is supposed to work, the worse trouble we get into. (Since you seem to be humor impaired I will refrain from any more jokes. This thread has become overlong anyway.)

Forrest

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), July 29, 1999.


Only 10% of the population was involved in the American war of independence. Are we approaching the 100th monkey? Gawd, I hope so.

-- (mass@delusions.com), July 29, 1999.

Hannah: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ